In a very controlled setting, maybe. But I'd still need to be convinced it was because of the wood.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
How exactly does wood affect tone in electric basses?
- Thread starter manutabora
- Start date
In a very controlled setting, maybe. But I'd still need to be convinced it was because of the wood.
There were, if I remember correctly, 2 great answers to the OP and the rest of us are just here to debate whether the phenomenon exists. Or just comment on the thread itself.
If you think it doesn't make a difference, why argue? Just be silent and buy up all the plywood basses while they're still cheap and everyone else is spending their money on "wood that resonates musically."
If you think it doesn't make a difference, why argue? Just be silent and buy up all the plywood basses while they're still cheap and everyone else is spending their money on "wood that resonates musically."
For electric bass, I'm in the wood is wood camp. I think the differences are marginal at best.
Your pickups, pickup type and location, preamp (voicing and eq'ing), and usable frequency range of your speakers have way more to do with the tone of your "electric bass" than wood.
Acoustic instruments I get that wood makes a larger impact.
Your pickups, pickup type and location, preamp (voicing and eq'ing), and usable frequency range of your speakers have way more to do with the tone of your "electric bass" than wood.
Acoustic instruments I get that wood makes a larger impact.
Sure. It depends on which camp they're in. If they don't believe the wood makes any appreciative difference (which is my own belief) then they won't worry about that aspect (from a sonic perspective).
Hey all,
I'm glad to read all of these answers. This is a valid question, and deserves some valid answers, not just "here comes another tone thread" responses. We've mostly heard opinions, and of course, they get old.
Here are some facts that have been missing to date in any discussion about timbre and vibrations etc.
1. A vibrating string is governed by the WAVE equation, a second order partial differential equation, typically of the form:
ytt = c2 * yxx - b * yt
where y is the displacement of the string (from the starting position), and changes with time and along the length of the string. ytt is the second derivative with respect to time, and yxx is the second derivative with respect to position along the length of the string. The last term is a decay term due to the transfer of energy to the ends of the string, which for a stringed instrument is the bridge & frets or nut (if an open string), and shows how the displacement of the string (i.e. its lateral movement) changes with time. A related acoustical term is the "decay" of the note - these are not the same - the acoustical decay is the sound resulting from the dampening of the string & energy transfer to the string ends.
2. Next, there is a question of the ENERGY TRANSFER within the instrument hardware. Because vibrational energy transfers differently in different materials, the decay term in the above-mentioned differential equation will change with each material, and because an instrument is a combination of several materials (metal bridge, body / fingerboard wood, nut, frets, etc.), the decay coefficient is very likely a highly nonlinear function to account for the impact of each individual component, but will ultimatelly depend on the nature of vibration propagation within that material.
3. So, there is a transfer of energy from the ends of the string into the bridge / fret & subsequently into the neck wood & body wood, and the vibration of the string is affected. Since the vibration of the string causes a change in the magnetic field (measured by the pickup), the electrical signal from the pickup magnet changes, and after appropriate amplification, the sound is heard. In the end, the decay coefficient in the differential equation determines how the vibrating string changes, and since the decay coefficient is based on the materials into which the energy propagates, that material (i.e. wood, bridge material, etc.) affects the string vibration and dampening, which affect the acoustical properties of the vibrating string, i.e. the timbre, or in crude terminology, the 'tone'. In an acoustical instrument where the wood creates the air vibrations directly, there is more of an effect, i.e., the transfer of vibrational energy from the string into the wood is direct, instead of being transfered from string to bridge to wood or string to fret / nut to wood.
NOTE: This nice analytical differential equation represents the WAVE equation in a very basic form, and is not the exact governing equation for a plucked string in a realistic situation. The exact form would look similar to this, but this is an approximation, where the real governing equation is FAR FAR more complex & probably highly nonlinear.
4. So, knowing that there theoretically is a difference, the question becomes how we can quantify the influence of a given piece of wood. If we were able to make a nice, compact governing equation for the vibration of an electric bass string, we'd have to quantify the vibration transfer between each subcomponent in the system. (Head spinning yet?) Every single other variable would have to be fixed, which is also almost exactly impossible. You'd have to have a plucking machine (to generate the same force of pluck each time), identical strings, bridge, etc. This isn't happening in your living room or even in a luthier's shop, I can assure you. To definitely fix all of these variables is not a trivial issue. A secondary method for quantification would be to model the waveforms of the string decay under different conditions, and empirically determine a difference between the two based on the string decay. This method is less than ideal, unless extreme care was taken to utilize precisely identical electrical conditions.
Everyone is correct in this thread. Wood WILL affect the timbre of a vibrating string through the transfer of vibrational energy. It IS, however, impossible to quantify a difference through the use of only one variable (wood type) while isolating and fixing all remaining variables variables. Examples of those variables include wood type, wood moisture content, wood porosity structure, structural shapes, bridge material, bridge shape, bridge to body contact, fret shape, fret material, nut shape, nut material, fret and nut to wood contact, pickup characteristics, etc.etc.) Since two pieces of the same wood species are different, otherwise identical basses are NOT identical, thus negating any type of worthwhile comparison.
If I ever hit the lottery, I'm going to establish a bass research institute & quantifiably determine all of these arguments in a rigorous, scientific fashion. Until then, we're stuck with our ears & what sounds good to us.
imp
P.S. I know my answer is correct - in fact, I challenge anyone reading this to prove my argument wrong.
I'm glad to read all of these answers. This is a valid question, and deserves some valid answers, not just "here comes another tone thread" responses. We've mostly heard opinions, and of course, they get old.
Here are some facts that have been missing to date in any discussion about timbre and vibrations etc.
1. A vibrating string is governed by the WAVE equation, a second order partial differential equation, typically of the form:
ytt = c2 * yxx - b * yt
where y is the displacement of the string (from the starting position), and changes with time and along the length of the string. ytt is the second derivative with respect to time, and yxx is the second derivative with respect to position along the length of the string. The last term is a decay term due to the transfer of energy to the ends of the string, which for a stringed instrument is the bridge & frets or nut (if an open string), and shows how the displacement of the string (i.e. its lateral movement) changes with time. A related acoustical term is the "decay" of the note - these are not the same - the acoustical decay is the sound resulting from the dampening of the string & energy transfer to the string ends.
2. Next, there is a question of the ENERGY TRANSFER within the instrument hardware. Because vibrational energy transfers differently in different materials, the decay term in the above-mentioned differential equation will change with each material, and because an instrument is a combination of several materials (metal bridge, body / fingerboard wood, nut, frets, etc.), the decay coefficient is very likely a highly nonlinear function to account for the impact of each individual component, but will ultimatelly depend on the nature of vibration propagation within that material.
3. So, there is a transfer of energy from the ends of the string into the bridge / fret & subsequently into the neck wood & body wood, and the vibration of the string is affected. Since the vibration of the string causes a change in the magnetic field (measured by the pickup), the electrical signal from the pickup magnet changes, and after appropriate amplification, the sound is heard. In the end, the decay coefficient in the differential equation determines how the vibrating string changes, and since the decay coefficient is based on the materials into which the energy propagates, that material (i.e. wood, bridge material, etc.) affects the string vibration and dampening, which affect the acoustical properties of the vibrating string, i.e. the timbre, or in crude terminology, the 'tone'. In an acoustical instrument where the wood creates the air vibrations directly, there is more of an effect, i.e., the transfer of vibrational energy from the string into the wood is direct, instead of being transfered from string to bridge to wood or string to fret / nut to wood.
NOTE: This nice analytical differential equation represents the WAVE equation in a very basic form, and is not the exact governing equation for a plucked string in a realistic situation. The exact form would look similar to this, but this is an approximation, where the real governing equation is FAR FAR more complex & probably highly nonlinear.
4. So, knowing that there theoretically is a difference, the question becomes how we can quantify the influence of a given piece of wood. If we were able to make a nice, compact governing equation for the vibration of an electric bass string, we'd have to quantify the vibration transfer between each subcomponent in the system. (Head spinning yet?) Every single other variable would have to be fixed, which is also almost exactly impossible. You'd have to have a plucking machine (to generate the same force of pluck each time), identical strings, bridge, etc. This isn't happening in your living room or even in a luthier's shop, I can assure you. To definitely fix all of these variables is not a trivial issue. A secondary method for quantification would be to model the waveforms of the string decay under different conditions, and empirically determine a difference between the two based on the string decay. This method is less than ideal, unless extreme care was taken to utilize precisely identical electrical conditions.
Everyone is correct in this thread. Wood WILL affect the timbre of a vibrating string through the transfer of vibrational energy. It IS, however, impossible to quantify a difference through the use of only one variable (wood type) while isolating and fixing all remaining variables variables. Examples of those variables include wood type, wood moisture content, wood porosity structure, structural shapes, bridge material, bridge shape, bridge to body contact, fret shape, fret material, nut shape, nut material, fret and nut to wood contact, pickup characteristics, etc.etc.) Since two pieces of the same wood species are different, otherwise identical basses are NOT identical, thus negating any type of worthwhile comparison.
If I ever hit the lottery, I'm going to establish a bass research institute & quantifiably determine all of these arguments in a rigorous, scientific fashion. Until then, we're stuck with our ears & what sounds good to us.
imp
P.S. I know my answer is correct - in fact, I challenge anyone reading this to prove my argument wrong.
allow me to feed the trolls a little bit.
what makes good wood or bad wood? What is tonewood? How can you know HOW a specific piece of wood will affect the sound?
Does wood make a difference in sound? absolutely. But how? Parker and others swear softwoods is where it's at, Warwick has made incredible business using very dense and heavy woods that weren't used before. Mtd suddenly starts using ash for a neck and now it's the new holy grail for neck woods.
Going back to my original question, how do you decide which wood is good for a bass and which one is bad for it?
what makes good wood or bad wood? What is tonewood? How can you know HOW a specific piece of wood will affect the sound?
Does wood make a difference in sound? absolutely. But how? Parker and others swear softwoods is where it's at, Warwick has made incredible business using very dense and heavy woods that weren't used before. Mtd suddenly starts using ash for a neck and now it's the new holy grail for neck woods.
Going back to my original question, how do you decide which wood is good for a bass and which one is bad for it?
Just curious, who are the trolls... the ones who think wood makes a difference in sound?
Experience.
Hey look, a troll!
Is it really that big a mystery how wood affects sound?
Had people been using Ash for necks before? Did people hear a difference between Ash and the other neck woods he used?
I know that IME I don't care for the Ash necks I've played... and it had nothing to do with the cost of the "upgrade" because there was none. And yes, I've played one that I didn't see was Ash before I played it. Maybe it was just a coincidence that they all shared a sound quality I didn't care for.
You try it. If you or your customer likes it, in that instance it's a good wood. Otherwise...
Somehow over time we've gone from the wood is flat out voodoo thing to wood actually can have an effect on sound. Amazing. I didn't see that coming.
Does choice of wood make a difference that couldnt otherwise be made with pickups and a parametric EQ?
Im not sure that it does. For me, my ideal bass would have a fairly bland, even tone that I could cut out the bands I dont want and boost the ones I do. I reckon switchable pickups and a good amp would give me all the tonal options I would want.
Ive only formed this opinion from playing a lot of basses in shops, so I may be wrong with what sounds good on stage.
Just my opinion, but its my ideal bass so there
Im not sure that it does. For me, my ideal bass would have a fairly bland, even tone that I could cut out the bands I dont want and boost the ones I do. I reckon switchable pickups and a good amp would give me all the tonal options I would want.
Ive only formed this opinion from playing a lot of basses in shops, so I may be wrong with what sounds good on stage.
Just my opinion, but its my ideal bass so there
